An LP Anarchist Caucus has just formed.
I’m not a big fan of the “five key points” – taken literally, there’s a couple of them that I actually disagree with, and taken humorously, they’re just not especially funny. But hey, I’ll join. See also Tom’s comments.
I’m still waiting for someone to take Brad up on his suggestion of a Libertarian Socialist Caucus ….
I figure if we want to combat the use of the term “anarchy” to mean violence and chaos, we need to start calling people on it when they so use it. Here, then, are two letters I just wrote:
Joe Casey
c/o Marvel Entertainment, Inc.
417 5th Avenue
New York NY 10016Dear Mr. Casey:
In Zodiac #1 (which lists you as the writer), Zodiac says “I had a vision of a world where anarchy is a way of life.” Unless Zodiac’s vision is of a peaceful, egalitarian world without coercive authority, where all human relationships are voluntary, this is an inaccurate and defamatory use of the concept of anarchy.
Now I’m sure you can find a dictionary that supports your use of the term “anarchy” to mean violence and chaos – just as older dictionaries sometimes endorse defamatory uses of terms like “Jew,” for example. But the fact that dictionaries still promote negative stereotypes of anarchists and anarchism is no excuse for imitating them.
Etymologically, “anarchy” does not mean violence or chaos; it means “without a ruler” (an, without; arkhos, ruler). Those who equate the absence of a ruler with violence and chaos should ask themselves which group has caused more violence and chaos throughout history – rulers or the rulerless.
Andrew Kreisberg
c/o DC Comics, Inc.
1700 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York NY 10019Dear Mr. Kreisberg:
In Green Arrow/Black Canary #21 (which lists you as the writer), the villain says that “anarchy came swiftly.” Unless he’s referring to the advent of a peaceful, egalitarian society without coercive authority, where all human relationships are voluntary, this is an inaccurate and defamatory use of the concept of anarchy.
Now I’m sure you can find a dictionary that supports your use of the term “anarchy” to mean violence and chaos – just as older dictionaries sometimes endorse defamatory uses of terms like “Jew,” for example. But the fact that dictionaries still promote negative stereotypes of anarchists and anarchism is no excuse for imitating them.
Etymologically, “anarchy” does not mean violence or chaos; it means “without a ruler” (an, without; arkhos, ruler). Those who equate the absence of a ruler with violence and chaos should ask themselves which group has caused more violence and chaos throughout history – rulers or the rulerless.
Drop ’em a line of your own if you’re so inclined.
A couple of other comics-related notes:
In my new role as LPA Regional Rep for Region 3 (the Selma-Montgomery-Auburn tier), I’ve created a webpage and Yahoo group; check them out.
I received an email today asking why the anarchic situation in Afghanistan hasn’t evolved toward a peaceful system of protection agencies as market anarchist theory predicts. Here’s the answer I sent back:
For one thing, anarchy doesn’t fully exist in Afghanistan; the u.s. is desperately trying to prop up a government, and they’re importing plenty of money and guns to make it happen. (Ditto for Somalia, mutatis mutandis; though Somalia’s been working out better because the population has a longer history of polycentric law.) For another, so long as everyone shares the default assumption that there’s going to be a monopoly state sooner or later, then everyone strives mightily to make sure their gang rather than some rival gang is in position to control that state once it materialises. Now a relatively peaceful anarchy can sometimes emerge even from a situation like that (there are some medieval examples), but it’s a lot easier when that assumption is given up.
A good analogy is the wars of religion that ripped Europe apart during the 16th and 17th centuries. The common assumption that fueled those wars was the assumption that every territory had to have a single monopoly religion. Obviously that generates a zero-sum game where everyone strives to make their religion the monopoly one – since if one religion is going to have the monopoly, everyone would rather have that be their own rather than the other guy’s. What brought religious peace to Europe was the idea of religious toleration – or in other words, the realisation that something other than a single victorious monopoly religion might count as a peaceful resolution of religious differences. Once people realise that the same thing applies to political toleration, it’ll be a lot easier to develop and maintain a polycentric legal order. (This is also a good example of how politics depends on culture. Just as governments end up better or worse depending on the prevailing cultural assumptions, so do anarchies.)
Any further suggestions, O readership? If so, I’ll send my questioner to the comments section here.
The LPA convention was held last weekend. The “business as usual” faction put up an opposition slate at the last minute and won the field; since the rebel slate’s supporters had assumed (despite our warnings!) that we would be running unopposed, most of them didn’t show up to vote. (The entrenched establishment is largely located in Birmingham, where the convention was held; our supporters were mostly located elsewhere in the state.) We did get one member of our slate, Matthew Givens, elected (his opponent having failed to show up), plus I was chosen as the Regional Representative for the Selma-Montgomery-Auburn tier. Well, you win some, you lose some.
This was my first visit to Birmingham in years, so it was nice to see the art museum again. Though I have to grump about some dubious labeling in the Asian Art section; for example, bodhisattvas are not “Buddhist deities” (unless St. Francis is a Catholic deity). I initially thought the translation of lingam as “pillar” was another such error (or more likely censorship), but apparently there’s controversy as to whether lingam actually means “phallus” after all.
In other news, Olbermann’s at it again. Either last night or the night before, I saw him lambasting Joe the Plumber for saying that America’s founders had rejected socialism and communism. The concepts of socialism and communism, Olbermann explained, weren’t formulated until about 50 years after the American founding, so the founders couldn’t have rejected them. Now Joe the Plumber deserves lambasting for a good many things, but this isn’t one of them. The founders were well aware of the debate between Plato and Aristotle on the subject of communism, and took Aristotle’s side; see the Jefferson-Adams correspondence, for example.
I also saw an odd headline: “Sanford Mistress Breaks Silence, Says Nothing.” Did she belch?